Madras High Court
A.Sudha vs The Senior Superintendent Of Post ... on 7 March, 2023
W.P(MD)No.379 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P(MD).No.379 of 2022
A.Sudha
... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Senior Superintendent Of Post Offices,
Kanyakumari Division,
Nagercoil-01.
2. The Manager,
Postal Life Insurance, Department of Posts,
Nagercoil Head Office,
Kanyakumari District.
3. The Inspector of Posts,
Kuzhithurai Sub Division, Kuzhithurai,
Kanyakumari District.
4. The Senior Post Master,
Department of Posts, Nagercoil Head Office,
Kanyakumari District.
... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records pertaining to the impugned order dated 30.03.2021 passed by the 2nd
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.379 of 2022
respondent in Letter No.0000003653152 and quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents to disburse the death claim amount for
the death of the petitioners husband namely Late.C.Aji under policy No.
0000003653152 within the time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.R.Prithviraj
For R1 to R4 : Mr.K.K.Lakshman
Standing Counsel
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed seeking interference with the
orders of second respondent, the Manager, Postal Life Insurance, Department
of Post, Nagercoil Head Office, Kanyakumari District, letter No.
0000003653152, dated 30.03.2021, by which the claim of the petitioner
towards Policy No. 0000003653152 in the name of the husband of the
petitioner herein, was declined by the second respondent.
2.Without entering into an examination of the facts, let me record
the order by which the said claim under the Policy was declined by the second
respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.379 of 2022
“Dear Shri/Ms.SUDHA A,
We regret to inform you that your claim under the captioned
Policy Number has been denied. The said claim is not payable
due to the reason mentioned below.
-Suppression of Fact.
If you have any queries concerning the decision please notify
at your nearest Post Office.
Thank you for choosing Postal Life Insurance for your life
insurance needs. If you have any queries pertaining to your
life insurance coverage, please contact your Agent or nearest
Post Office or our customer service center at
1-800-180-5232/155232. You may contact from Monday to
Saturday between 10:30 AM to 4:30PM.”
3.The only reason given by the second respondent is suppression
of facts. However, it was also stated that, if the petitioner had any query, she
can always go to the nearest Post Office.
4.Without doing so, she filed the present petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.379 of 2022
5.The grievance of the second respondent is that the petitioner
can very well approach the local Post Office and reasons could have been
given.
6.It is seen from the records, that the petitioner's husband taken
three policies and unfortunately, thereafter, died. The reason for denial was
not disclosed, while the claim was refused by the second respondent.
7.The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that necessity to
disclose that further policies had been taken would arise only when the age of
the insured was 46 years and above, but the injured died at 45 years and 7
months. Hence, there was no necessity for the petitioner to disclose the facts
of the earlier two policies.
8.The learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent stated
that disclosure of earlier policies would have necessitated taking various
medical tests by the insured and that the policies had been issued without
undergoing such process. Even though, medical tests had been taken, it is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.379 of 2022
known, whether the required medical tests were taken or not.
9.Any Authority passing an administrative order should put forth
the reason in the order.
10.I am strengthened in this view by the judgment of the
Constitution Bench in Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs The Chief
Election Commissioner and others, reported in AIR 1978 SC 851, wherein it
was held as follows:
“The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary
makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by
the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in
the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the
beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge,
get validated by additional grounds later brought ,out. We may here draw
attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji (1) "Public
orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be
construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer
making the order of what he meant, or of what was in Ms mind, or what
he intended to, do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.379 of 2022
have public effect and are intended to effect the actings and conduct of
those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with
reference to the language used in the order itself."
11.Even though, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated the above
in an Election Petition, still the principle that reasons should be given in the
impugned order.
12.Without entering into any discussion, the impugned order,
dated 30.03.2022 is set aside and the entire issue is remitted back to the
second respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with rules. During
such consideration to ensure transparency, notice is to be issued to the
petitioner herein, hear the petitioner and her explanation for taking the other
two policies. The statement that the petitioner was also paid the amount
insured towards other policies is also recorded.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.379 of 2022
13.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. The second
respondent is directed to complete the process of enquiry, in the manner as
aforesaid, within a period of six weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. No costs.
07.03.2023
NCS : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes/ No
PNM
To
1. The Senior Superintendent Of Post Offices,
Kanyakumari Division,
Nagercoil-01.
2. The Manager,
Postal Life Insurance, Department of Posts,
Nagercoil Head Office,
Kanyakumari District.
3. The Inspector of Posts,
Kuzhithurai Sub Division, Kuzhithurai,
Kanyakumari District.
4. The Senior Post Master,
Department of Posts, Nagercoil Head Office,
Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.379 of 2022
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
PNM
ORDER IN
W.P(MD).No.379 of 2022
07.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
